Stones on the Prairie: Acculturation in Texas

Women and the Russian Military, 1650–1730: A Preliminary Survey

Rude & Barbarous Kingdom Revisited: Essays in Russian History and Culture in Honor of Robert O. Crummey. Chester S. L. Dunning, Russell E. Martin, and Daniel Rowland, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2008, 473–90.       Women and the Russian Military, 1650–1730: A Preliminary Survey Carol B. Stevens “Soldiers   alone   do   not   make   an   army.”1   As   military   historians   have   long   acknowledged,  there  is  far  more  to  an  army  than  the  combatants  themselves;   logistics,   training,   finances,   propaganda,   and   recruitment   are   among   the   many  topics  that  have  received  specialized  study.  A  field  that  remains  some-­‐‑ what   less   well   studied   is   that   of   women   and   war,   even   though,   during   the   early  modern  period  in  Europe,  and  perhaps  elsewhere,  “at  no  time  were  so   many  women  engaged  in  warfare.”2  This  engagement  included  a  particularly   broad  variety  of  occupations  and  activities,  and  it  provides  a  glimpse,  albeit   fleeting,  into  the  lives  of  women  at  a  time  when  their  voices  are  rarely  heard   outside  of  elite  circles.    In   the   early   modern   era,   women’s   involvement   in   military   life   was   largely  informal  and  supportive;  nonetheless,  it  had  an  important,  indirect  re-­‐‑ lationship  to  the  military  establishments  of  a  variety  of  European  countries.   To  explain:  As  a  prolific  school  of  historiography  testifies,  the  role  of  govern-­‐‑ ments   in   controlling   and   appropriating   social   violence,   and   then   in   raising,   fielding,   and   supporting   armies   and   navies,   underwent   significant   changes   between  the  15th  and  18th  centuries.  By  the  late  19th  century,  most  European   states  mustered  armies  and  navies  staffed  largely  by  their  nationals.  These  ar-­‐‑ mies  and  navies  were  military  establishments  supported  by  complex  public   systems  of  finance,  recruitment,  food,  and  military  supply.  There  was  every   expectation,   politically   and   socially,   that   governments   were   responsible   for   the  creation  and  maintenance  of  such  military  systems.  In  preceding  centu-­‐‑ ries,  however,  few  of  these  statements  would  have  been  true.  First  of  all,  vio-­‐‑ lence  and  the  use  of  force  had  not  been  exclusively  harnessed  to  governmen-­‐‑ tal  entities.  Further,  many  European  armies  and  navies  relied  upon  the  semi-­‐‑ private   recruitment   of   combatants   such   as   mercenaries   and   privateers.                                                                                                                             1  Holly  A.  Mayer,  Belonging  to  the  Army  (Columbia:  University  of  South  Carolina  Press,   1996),  1.  My  thanks  to  Philip  Uninsky,  as  always,  for  his  editorial  comments  and  to   Brian  Davies  for  his  recommendations.   2  Brian   Crim,   “Silent   Partners:   Women   and   Warfare   in   Early   Modern   Europe,”   in   A   Soldier   and   A   Woman:   Sexual   Interaction   in   the   Military,   ed.   Gerard   J.   De   Groot   and   Corinna   Peniston-­‐‑Bird   (New   York:   Pearson   Education,   2000),   27,  with  specific  refer-­‐‑ ence  to  the  period  1500–1650.   474 CAROL B. STEVENS Perhaps  even  more  noticeably,  military  support  systems  were  not  the  exclu-­‐‑ sive  province  of  government.  Off  the  field  of  battle,  taxes  were  collected  by   tax   farmers;   provisions   were   mustered   by   contractors   and   requisitioned   by   combatants  themselves,  and  so  on.  Closer  to  the  troops  themselves,  military   support  systems  were  also  sustained  by  impromptu  and  unacknowledged,  as   well   as   quasi-­‐‑governmental,   actors.   Sutlers,   gunsmiths,   military   advisors,   laundresses,   nurses,   cooks,   prostitutes,   tailors,   local   foragers,   and   many   others  supported  the  daily  rounds  of  military  men  on  and  off  the  battlefield.   As   many   as   half   of   the   non-­‐‑combatants   that   followed   an   army   could   be   women.  3  Many  had  personal  connections  to  the  troops  as  well  as  working  for   and   with   them.   Military   families   contributed   not   only   labor,   but   a   sense   of   community  vital  to  the  combatants’  well-­‐‑being  and  military  abilities.  In  these   and  other  ways,  then,  women  in  the  early  modern  period  played  a  critical  role   in  sustaining  European  troops  on  and  off  the  battlefield;  their  private  actions   helped  sustain  rudimentary  and  developing  military  support  systems  and  in   many   respects   made   possible   the   functioning   of   early   modern   armies   and   navies.  Although  such  contributions  were  sometimes  vital,  military  establish-­‐‑ ments   reacted   to   informal   support   in   a   variety   of   ways,   attempting   with   mixed  success  to  acknowledge,  transform,  control,  or  even  ban  it.4     Russian  armies  of  the  early  modern  period  differed  in  a  variety  of  ways   from  their  counterparts  further  west.  They  had  larger  proportions  of  cavalry,   for  example,  and  in  the  17th  century  many  troops  served  for  a  single  season   or  campaign  at  a  time.  5  Despite  such  differences,  one  is  prompted  to  wonder   about   Russian   equivalents   to   the   informal,   private,   or   semi-­‐‑official   military   support  systems  that  were  so  important  further  west.  Some  elements  of  this   question,  such  as  the  recruitment  and  role  of  mercenaries  in  the  17th-­‐‑century   army,  have  received  some  research  attention.6  However,  there  has  been  little                                                                                                                             3  Barton  C.  Hacker...